Earlier quoted context omitted.
The meetings are strictly private, no minutes are kept, and there is no one in the room with them. PMs have said it is about the only time they get to talk through issues and ideas with someone knowledgeable and invested, without any fear at all of backlash, or of it being leaked or misrepresented. So your line of argument is way off.
> PMs have said it is about the only time they get to talk through issues and ideas with someone knowledgeable and invested That's interesting - please could you give any pointers to who said this and when?
Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state
101–110 of 140 posts
Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state
#102I'm very curious, in all of these cases, what the replacement will be and even if there will be a replacement. I mentioned that to my wife (we're Canadian), and her response was why do we even need a head of state if we have a Prime Minister? And I'll be honest, I didn't have an answer.
Probably a non-executive elected president, like Ireland or Germany. The Irish position, in particular, was fairly explicitly created as a monarch substitute. Though, Barbados went with a somewhat more powerful president; their one appears to have a veto.
Sort of. It definitely substitutes for a bunch of monarchial stuff, but the major function of the Presidency was to provide Dev someplace to retire to where he could still influence things.
Since he's gone it's been almost entirely ceremonial with the exception of the constitutionality of new laws part (and the dissolving of government, but that hasn't come up since 1994).
Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state
#103As I Canadian I would strongly support removing the English monarchy as our head of state. I hope other countries do so as well.
As a fellow Canadian, I genuinely ask 'why'? I'm neither in favour or opposed to removing the monarchy but I'm wondering why we would? Is our country being held back in some way from having the monarchy? Is it just because of the cost, the pomp and circumstance? I suspect there are benefits to having the monarchy as head of state, what happens when we lose them? I'd love to see Jann Arden on the one dollar coin, but…
[deleted]
Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state
#104Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state
#105As I Canadian I would strongly support removing the English monarchy as our head of state. I hope other countries do so as well.
As a fellow Canadian, I genuinely ask 'why'? I'm neither in favour or opposed to removing the monarchy but I'm wondering why we would? Is our country being held back in some way from having the monarchy? Is it just because of the cost, the pomp and circumstance? I suspect there are benefits to having the monarchy as head of state, what happens when we lose them? I'd love to see Jann Arden on the one dollar coin, but…
Couple reasons come to mind:
1) The institutional apparatus required to maintain the monarch as head of state is reasonably complex and expensive, both from a legal point of view and in a financial sense. The governor general is an unelected official whose power technically exceeds any democratically selected person in our government, and they make almost $300k/yr to do essentially nothing but administrative ceremony. I know that in the big scheme of things, $300k (plus whatever other perks/bonuses they get, along with their staff) is just a drop in the bucket, but it feels a bit like theft from Canadians given this role doesn't need to exist at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_General_of_Canada
2) The royals do have a bit of a history of interfering in the politics of past colonies - the recent reveal a few years ago that Charles (I think...?) influenced the selection of high ranking Australian government officials in the 80's was a bit of a shock to many. Apologies, I can't find the right combination of phrases to yield anything in google except tabloid nonsense as a source. In any case, there is at least some evidence that the royals, either through wealth, old-school power politics, or direct action do play about with the politics of other countries, even when they explicitly should do not that. I detest this.
3) I really do not like what the royals stand for. Monarchism, colonialism, genocide, general crumminess. Spending £12 million to pay off one of the women Prince Andrew allegedly sexually assaulted as a minor, using public money, is an atrocious act and one I still cannot believe got so little media coverage here. Then there's all the general petty money issues: Prince Charles doesn't pay inheritance tax (why? Because, that's why). The royal family is except from all sorts of laws pertaining to wealth transfer actually, in some cases literally because it's coded into the laws themselves that Her Majesty is excluded. It's ridiculous. And here in the UK you still are not legally allowed to protest the monarchs. I mean - you can, but you can also be arrested for it. Just in the last 2 days there's been outcry as 2 people were arrested for anti-monarchist protest signs.
https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/11/woman-arrested-after-holding-... https://www.thenational.scot/news/21319718.protester-arreste... https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1569270901685862403?...
It's time to let go of the past, try to build a future for ourselves that doesn't centre around the absolute worst parts of our collective histories.
Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not having a President is reason #1 to keep a constitutional monarch. The constitutional monarch is a figurehead without much of a day to day role, but who ensures that the demagogue we elect is not at the pinnacle of the political hierarchy. That's more important than most people understand. A prime minister is always aware of the limits of the role.
You don't need a monarch for that. If you're going to have an unaccountable position filled by someone without any demonstrable merit, then have a lottery once per year that draws a random citizen to fill the role.
And put his/her face on the money!
Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect the moment Canada loses protection of the King is the moment the US invades. Some say we already have ...
> I suspect the moment Canada loses protection of the King is the moment the US invades. Lol. No offense to the memory of Queen Liz, but she could not have done a thing had the US decided to do something stupid like that. That said, just the notion is preposterous. The US would have lost much more than the Queen’s approbation, in the grand scheme of things.
Maybe the Queen was the only thing holding back an invasion of the US … I saw a documentary about that once called Canadian Bacon I think.
Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unelected head of states are a slap in the face of equality.
Yeah. Choosing your head of state should be opt-in, rather than opt-out at best (or, more realistically, no opt at all).
Also, since monarchs have to be politically neutral, which is another absurdity on top of an absurd situation, a monarchy lacks the powers that a President has in parliamentary republics, of dissolving the parliament and calling elections.
The UK has been stuck in crisis mode more than once, because the Queen couldn’t say “fuck it, let’s have some elections because the current state of affairs is damaging the country”.
Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a fellow Canadian, I genuinely ask 'why'? I'm neither in favour or opposed to removing the monarchy but I'm wondering why we would? Is our country being held back in some way from having the monarchy? Is it just because of the cost, the pomp and circumstance? I suspect there are benefits to having the monarchy as head of state, what happens when we lose them? I'd love to see Jann Arden on the one dollar coin, but…
> I suspect there are benefits to having the monarchy as head of state For them for sure, especially financially wise
Really? Do you have any references for how much money the Royal Family takes from Canada?
Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a fellow Canadian, I genuinely ask 'why'? I'm neither in favour or opposed to removing the monarchy but I'm wondering why we would? Is our country being held back in some way from having the monarchy? Is it just because of the cost, the pomp and circumstance? I suspect there are benefits to having the monarchy as head of state, what happens when we lose them? I'd love to see Jann Arden on the one dollar coin, but…
>I suspect there are benefits to having the monarchy as head of state Genuinely curious what those would be? I think it's far from the most urgent issue our country is facing right now, but most of my objections to the monarchy would be moral or philosophical. For one, in moral terms there is a lot of... let's say "historical baggage" that comes with the monarchy. For another, I don't think a hereditary system of gov…
> Genuinely curious what those would be?
You don't have the highly polarized politics they've got in the US.
I'm a republican (not a US republican, but merely favour republics) but I don't see how relinquishing the British Crown would change anything for the better for Canada or Australia? Canada would probably need to become a parliamentary republic like Germany or Greece, where the president has a ceremonial role.